Cargando…
An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth
BACKGROUND: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have eme...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2009
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19538759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-24 |
_version_ | 1782169053113090048 |
---|---|
author | Flenady, Vicki Frøen, J Frederik Pinar, Halit Torabi, Rozbeh Saastad, Eli Guyon, Grace Russell, Laurie Charles, Adrian Harrison, Catherine Chauke, Lawrence Pattinson, Robert Koshy, Rachel Bahrin, Safiah Gardener, Glenn Day, Katie Petersson, Karin Gordon, Adrienne Gilshenan, Kristen |
author_facet | Flenady, Vicki Frøen, J Frederik Pinar, Halit Torabi, Rozbeh Saastad, Eli Guyon, Grace Russell, Laurie Charles, Adrian Harrison, Catherine Chauke, Lawrence Pattinson, Robert Koshy, Rachel Bahrin, Safiah Gardener, Glenn Day, Katie Petersson, Karin Gordon, Adrienne Gilshenan, Kristen |
author_sort | Flenady, Vicki |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have emerged. We assessed the performance of six contemporary systems to inform the development of an internationally accepted approach. METHODS: We evaluated the following systems: Amended Aberdeen, Extended Wigglesworth; PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe, Tulip and CODAC. Nine teams from 7 countries applied the classification systems to cohorts of stillbirths from their regions using 857 stillbirth cases. The main outcome measures were: the ability to retain the important information about the death using the InfoKeep rating; the ease of use according to the Ease rating (both measures used a five-point scale with a score <2 considered unsatisfactory); inter-observer agreement and the proportion of unexplained stillbirths. A randomly selected subset of 100 stillbirths was used to assess inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: InfoKeep scores were significantly different across the classifications (p ≤ 0.01) due to low scores for Wigglesworth and Aberdeen. CODAC received the highest mean (SD) score of 3.40 (0.73) followed by PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe and Tulip [2.77 (1.00), 2.36 (1.21), 1.92 (1.24) respectively]. Wigglesworth and Aberdeen resulted in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths and CODAC and Tulip the lowest. While Ease scores were different (p ≤ 0.01), all systems received satisfactory scores; CODAC received the highest score. Aberdeen and Wigglesworth showed poor agreement with kappas of 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. Tulip performed best with a kappa of 0.74. The remainder had good to fair agreement. CONCLUSION: The Extended Wigglesworth and Amended Aberdeen systems cannot be recommended for classification of stillbirths. Overall, CODAC performed best with PSANZ-PDC and ReCoDe performing well. Tulip was shown to have the best agreement and a low proportion of unexplained stillbirths. The virtues of these systems need to be considered in the development of an international solution to classification of stillbirths. Further studies are required on the performance of classification systems in the context of developing countries. Suboptimal agreement highlights the importance of instituting measures to ensure consistency for any classification system. |
format | Text |
id | pubmed-2706223 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2009 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-27062232009-07-07 An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth Flenady, Vicki Frøen, J Frederik Pinar, Halit Torabi, Rozbeh Saastad, Eli Guyon, Grace Russell, Laurie Charles, Adrian Harrison, Catherine Chauke, Lawrence Pattinson, Robert Koshy, Rachel Bahrin, Safiah Gardener, Glenn Day, Katie Petersson, Karin Gordon, Adrienne Gilshenan, Kristen BMC Pregnancy Childbirth Research Article BACKGROUND: Audit and classification of stillbirths is an essential part of clinical practice and a crucial step towards stillbirth prevention. Due to the limitations of the ICD system and lack of an international approach to an acceptable solution, numerous disparate classification systems have emerged. We assessed the performance of six contemporary systems to inform the development of an internationally accepted approach. METHODS: We evaluated the following systems: Amended Aberdeen, Extended Wigglesworth; PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe, Tulip and CODAC. Nine teams from 7 countries applied the classification systems to cohorts of stillbirths from their regions using 857 stillbirth cases. The main outcome measures were: the ability to retain the important information about the death using the InfoKeep rating; the ease of use according to the Ease rating (both measures used a five-point scale with a score <2 considered unsatisfactory); inter-observer agreement and the proportion of unexplained stillbirths. A randomly selected subset of 100 stillbirths was used to assess inter-observer agreement. RESULTS: InfoKeep scores were significantly different across the classifications (p ≤ 0.01) due to low scores for Wigglesworth and Aberdeen. CODAC received the highest mean (SD) score of 3.40 (0.73) followed by PSANZ-PDC, ReCoDe and Tulip [2.77 (1.00), 2.36 (1.21), 1.92 (1.24) respectively]. Wigglesworth and Aberdeen resulted in a high proportion of unexplained stillbirths and CODAC and Tulip the lowest. While Ease scores were different (p ≤ 0.01), all systems received satisfactory scores; CODAC received the highest score. Aberdeen and Wigglesworth showed poor agreement with kappas of 0.35 and 0.25 respectively. Tulip performed best with a kappa of 0.74. The remainder had good to fair agreement. CONCLUSION: The Extended Wigglesworth and Amended Aberdeen systems cannot be recommended for classification of stillbirths. Overall, CODAC performed best with PSANZ-PDC and ReCoDe performing well. Tulip was shown to have the best agreement and a low proportion of unexplained stillbirths. The virtues of these systems need to be considered in the development of an international solution to classification of stillbirths. Further studies are required on the performance of classification systems in the context of developing countries. Suboptimal agreement highlights the importance of instituting measures to ensure consistency for any classification system. BioMed Central 2009-06-19 /pmc/articles/PMC2706223/ /pubmed/19538759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-24 Text en Copyright © 2009 Flenady et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0 This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0) ), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Flenady, Vicki Frøen, J Frederik Pinar, Halit Torabi, Rozbeh Saastad, Eli Guyon, Grace Russell, Laurie Charles, Adrian Harrison, Catherine Chauke, Lawrence Pattinson, Robert Koshy, Rachel Bahrin, Safiah Gardener, Glenn Day, Katie Petersson, Karin Gordon, Adrienne Gilshenan, Kristen An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
title | An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
title_full | An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
title_fullStr | An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
title_full_unstemmed | An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
title_short | An evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
title_sort | evaluation of classification systems for stillbirth |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2706223/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19538759 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2393-9-24 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT flenadyvicki anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT frøenjfrederik anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT pinarhalit anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT torabirozbeh anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT saastadeli anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT guyongrace anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT russelllaurie anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT charlesadrian anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT harrisoncatherine anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT chaukelawrence anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT pattinsonrobert anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT koshyrachel anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT bahrinsafiah anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT gardenerglenn anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT daykatie anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT peterssonkarin anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT gordonadrienne anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT gilshenankristen anevaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT flenadyvicki evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT frøenjfrederik evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT pinarhalit evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT torabirozbeh evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT saastadeli evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT guyongrace evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT russelllaurie evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT charlesadrian evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT harrisoncatherine evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT chaukelawrence evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT pattinsonrobert evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT koshyrachel evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT bahrinsafiah evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT gardenerglenn evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT daykatie evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT peterssonkarin evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT gordonadrienne evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth AT gilshenankristen evaluationofclassificationsystemsforstillbirth |